Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 335 (MAD)

A. Pandiarajan v. P. Moorthy

2015-01-21

V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN

body2015
Judgment :- 1. The civil revision petition arises out of the return made by the District Munsif Court, Chengalput on an unnumbered plaint on the ground that the suit property had to be valued as a house site and not a nanja land and that the court fee had to be paid accordingly. 2. Heard Mr. S. Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice to the respondents is dispensed with, since the civil revision petition arises out of a written endorsement made on an unnumbered plaint. 3. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.S.R. No. 6586 of 2014 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chengalput praying for a decree of declaration of title and for a permanent injunction. He valued the suit for the purpose of court fees at Rs.2,000/- and paid Rs.151/- under Sections 25(b) and 27(c) of the Tamilnadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act , 1955. 4. The description of the property contained in the plaint schedule reads as follows: “All the piece and parcel of the vacant site bearing plot No.1, comprised in survey No.9/1A4B as per patta No.722 situated at No.4, Urappakkam Village, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kanchipuram District bounded on the East by : Plot No.2 West by : Vacant house site North by : 23 Feet Road South by : Vacant house site in all ad-measuring 2,794 sq.ft situate within the registration district of South Chennai and Sub Registration District of Guduvanchery.” 5. Therefore, the Court below returned the plaint on the ground that the property is a house site and that its valuation had to be on the basis of the market value of house sites. The petitioner represented the papers. But, the Court below finally returned the plaint on the ground that the suit property is a house site and not a nanja land. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court. 6. After having described the property as a land measuring 2,794 sq.ft., the plaintiff had chosen to value it under Section 25(b) on the ground that the land is a nanja land. This is actually a question of fact, on which, a determination can be made only after evidence is recorded. Therefore, the Court below ought to have numbered the plaint and allowed this issue to be raised by the defendants. This is actually a question of fact, on which, a determination can be made only after evidence is recorded. Therefore, the Court below ought to have numbered the plaint and allowed this issue to be raised by the defendants. The rights of the defendants to object to the valuation and the court fee paid are very clearly available under the provisions of the Act as well as the Code. 7. In view of the above, the civil revision petition is allowed. The endorsement of return made on 2.12.2014 by the Court below is set aside. The Court below is directed to number the plaint and proceed in accordance with law, if the plaint is otherwise in order. However, the question as to whether the plaint is properly valued and whether proper court fee has been paid or not, is left open to be agitated by the defendants at the appropriate time. No costs. Petition allowed.